For speaking opportunities,
interviews, op-eds, book-signings, art exhibitions and ways to support my work
as a blogger, author, a budding digital artist, and a pro-democracy activist, please
reach out to me through this contact form.

Today’s
Post is brought to you by…The
Illiberalist International: Reintroducing slavery one lie at a time. Slave-owners
wannabes, join us and all others will be your salves.

The Delirica

So, is America
teaming up with Al-Qaeda, again? That is indeed the story if one is to
believe Andrew Cockburn's assertion in this essay of his in Harper’s magazine. A more
accurate statement, however, might go like this: America might be teaming up
with some Jihadi groups (such as Ahrar Al-Sham and Jaish Al-Islam) whose basic
ideology may not be so different from Al-Qaeda, in order to defeat a common
enemy, in this case the IS/Daesh. America has adopted a similar strategy before
when it supported the Afghan Mujahideen, an assortment of Jihadi groups backed
by Saudi Arabia as well and which included Al-Qaeda, as well as Iranian-backed
Shia Jihadis, in their fight against the Soviets. In geopolitical terms, these
nuances make a helluva difference. When it comes to Russia, Iran, China, and
even Syria or Venezuela, such nuances, such political consideration are never
neglected, and are often used by a variety of pundits, experts and journalists
to justify the often inexcusable and cruel actions of the leaderships involved.
But when it comes to America, things have to be seen in black and white, for
some ideological reason. And America has to be condemned, where others are
given a pass.

This comes as a defense of
consistency rather than America’s fuckups, past or present. Why can’t we just
examine things from a somewhat detached perspective, so we can truly understand
our lot and have a decent chance at improving it?

Back to Syria and America’s plans
there, consider this: when no one intervened when Assad was bombing the largely
peaceful protesters, and when it took close to a year before America began to
provide some logistical support to moderate rebels, albeit on a highly
haphazard basis, and when talks with Iran proceeded as though they were not
supporting Assad’s mass slaughter campaign, and a deal was reached that only
serve to postpone the “inevitable” while further empowering one of the most
destabilizing forces in the region, when Russians were allowed to do what they
wanted in Syria from providing arms to the Assad regime to carving their own
niche along the Mediterranean (imperialism anyone?), and when you pledged not
to put boots on the grounds even if for the defense of the weak and the
shattered remains of our sense of humanity and decency, and when international
law is clearly on your side, even if it suited the Russian not to admit it,
when you are willing to do or let all this happen, what other options did you
really leave yourself? When you let the rascals out, and only watch as they
push the decent and the moderate away from the scene, when you, in other words,
let the rascals rule, with whom are going to partner when it is time for you to
act?

On the other hand, for the same
people who were advocating non-intervention (I don’t know if Andrew Cockburn is
one of them, but his article is definitely being shared all over by them), and
who are supportive of the deal with Iran and are against putting boots on the
ground, and who are now busy criticizing Saudi Arabia’s role in Syria and the
region, while ignoring Iran’s similar role, and who are set against this
particularly desperate amoral measure, which remains more a possibility than a
reality, what do they really want? Some want Assad to stay in power, and some
are clearly advocating a return to the policy of doing business with autocrats,
but not Saudi, Qatari, Turkish, or any potentially powerful Sunni autocrat
really, just Shia, Russian, Chinese and weak Sunni and African autocrats. Why?
Who knows? It could be anything from ideology and clientelism to having
LSD-fried brains, or meth for blood. Whatever the cause may be, this is the
consequence: the fascists are reemerging on the historical scene, and with a
vengeance. Their failure
to win he regional elections in France is heartening, but could prove to be
a temporary setback if not followed up with efforts to address the roots causes
behind the phenomenon. And that’s a toll order.

The Economist then goes on to
suggest steps to help tackle the problem, including: maintaining commitment to “open markets,
open borders, globalisation and the free movement of people,” work with
Muslims attempting to take on the extremists in their midst, and show strong
leadership on security challenges. The last point does not mean that we should
focus on the IS/Daesh phenomenon alone, but on the larger issues that
facilitated its rise, which in Syria, would include the Assad regime and its
murderous tactics.

But by now, it should be clear
that tackling the issue of Assad’s removal has become an overly complicated
problem. The U.S. cannot proceed alone in this matter. But then, the U.S. does
not have to. Now that Saudi Arabia has announced the formation of a 34-State
Islamic Military Alliance Against Terrorism, the U.S. should work with them
to prevent this from becoming another nonsensical dysfunctional entity like the
Friends of Syria group or the Arab League, and call on them to provide the
necessary boots on the ground. Meanwhile, the U.S., France, the U.K., Germany,
Australia and perhaps Canada as well, if Justin Trudeau is willing to
reconsider its decision about involvement in the Syria Conflict, can provide
the necessary air cover and logistical support, and perhaps even create a
no-fly zone to ensure the protection of civilian population. Liberated areas
can then be government by the local councils who, as
Alexander Starritt argues in The Guardian, represent the real alternative
to both IS and Assad.

Yes, the move does entail risking
a confrontation with Russia and Iran, but there is no way out of this anymore.
Both countries need to be stopped, and they need to be stopped now, in Syria,
else they are bound to create more mayhem in the region and elsewhere: Central
Asia is already boiling, and Russia’s designs on well-nigh imploding Moldova
are no secret.

The Deliricon

Farticle:
An editorial or a news report written right after the author has experienced
the equivalent of a brain fart – a bursting aneurism of hot air in the brain,
itself the result of inhaling fecal gasses for too long. The phenomenon is also
known as brain halitosis.

Meanwhile, Father
Of Fallen Muslim War Hero Teaches Trump A Lesson About American Values. “Muslims are
American, Muslims are citizens, Muslims participate in the well-being of this
country as American citizens. We are proud American citizens. It’s the values
of this country that brought us here, not our religion. Trump’s position on
these issues does not represent those values… This country is not strong
because of its economic power, or military power. This country is strong
because of its values, and during this political season, we all need to keep
that in mind.”

But, one cannot but admit that
had it not been for people like Trump and Marie Le Pen, we may not have seen
stories like these about Muslims in the media:

A reasonable
person, after listening sympathetically, might conclude that Cruz, unlike
Trump, has designed his refugee policy out of prudence, not prejudice… [But]
Cruz
isn’t agonizing over the mechanics of vetting refugees. He’s exploiting
anti-Muslim anger and sucking up to the Christian right. And he’s doing it
while wearing his own disguise: principled leader.

That is, by clamoring for the
admission of more Christian refugees from Syria, while banning Muslims, even
though IS operatives could as easily mascaraed as Christians, Mr. Cruz is
presenting a bogus argument that is meant to hide his own prejudice as well as
his desire to cater to the Christian right in the country. As for the
persecution of Shia (the author here seems to be mixing Twelver Shia and Alawites)
by IS, and while Mr. Saletan’s reasons for mentioning them is meant to showcase
Mr. Cruz’s hypocrisy when it comes to persecuted minorities, we should bear in
mind that most of the killing and persecution that has been happening in Syria
over the last five years is carried out by Twelver Shia militias (manned mostly
by Lebanese, Iraqi, Afghani and Iranian mercenaries), and army units commanded
by Alawite generals and manned mostly by Alawite recruits.

So, in essence, Republican
debates feature, in effect, Donald Trump and a few Mini-Mes. However, this
sweeping rejection of GOP candidates does not include their grassroots
supporters, the
majority of whom are definitely NOT White Supremacists, and may not
understand the implications of what's happening in their name at this stage. Yes,
prejudice is often involved in their perceptions of things, but their prejudice
seems to be more a matter of ignorance, fear and a battered sense of identity
than ideological conviction – which is what distinguishes the stands of White
Supremacists.

As such, there is much that needs
to be done by way of education, and even more by way of addressing the underlying
socioeconomic issues that seem to be at play here. Development I the U.S.
continues to be uneven, and there are too many towns and communities where the living
standards of the people involved reek of underdevelopment.

But this is not all about domestic
policy. The way America has been conducting its foreign policy, perhaps since
the end of the Cold War, or at least since 9/11 is in question here. There is
enough blame to go around here, America’s current retreat is not the product of
the fuckups of one administration’s policies. The idea that Obama and his
apologists have been trying to peddle ever since the onset of the Arab Spring,
namely that retreat and non-involvement, or minimal involvement, make for smart
policy is ludicrous. The retreat has created power vacuums both abroad and
at home, a vacuum that was immediately filled by illiberal forces. Yes,
retreat abroad created a power vacuum at home, the perception of weakness that
Obama created had implications at home as well where he already had problems. He
gave the most fringe elements enough fodder to allow them to move closer to the
mainstream.

But this is not simply about
mismanaging the transition into an America with a smaller footprint, it’s about
the unilateral nature of the decision itself. An America with a smaller
footprint can be good for America and the world, but such a transition cannot
be accomplished with a unilateral American retreat, but through sharing of the
responsibility of global leadership with America’s liberal allies around the
world. Obama needed to make sure before any retreat that whatever vacuum that
will be left behind will be filled the right combination of global and regional
actors.

But America still has a chance to
undertake a course correction. And the process has to begin by pacifying Syria,
NOW, before the Russo-Iranians alliance grows larger and before it heats up
other fronts.

Here's where the Right and the Left
are failing: our challenge today is no longer about nation-building in that old
geographically confined sense, nor is it about a globalization that undermines
the peoples’ sense of belonging and identity. Rather, the challenge is about
nation-building going hand-in-hand with world-building, about finding ways to find
common grounds and institutions that can allow us to interact on an equal
footing as human beings, even as expressions of our common humanity remain
different. The idea of a nation standing apart from all others as a fortress entity
is no longer feasible. Each nation in this hyper-connected world of ours, no
matter how small, has interests that go far beyond its border. The COP21
agreement is one expression of that, competition over energy and food sources
and networks of global transport and distribution involved, the challenge of global
terrorism and certain emerging demographic realities are other such expressions.
The notion that no nation can be secure and free if others are not is no longer
an idealist assertion, but an observed and experiential reality with immediate
geopolitical implications that warrant our immediate attention.

In trying to manage this
complicated situation, it’s clear that we cannot rely on idiosyncratic figures
such as Vladimir Putin, Ali Khamenei and Bashar Al-Assad, And it’s equally
clear from what is happening in Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and Ukraine, that we
cannot let dictate the pace and nature of the current transition. The
resurgence of illiberalism is a fact, but it’s a triumph is neither inevitable,
nor a viable option. There is no such a thing as the right to oppress, not even
in the name of traditional beliefs and values, or some “holy” texts. Indeed, there
will always be powerful figures and forces aligned against the “liberal” vision
and the values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and
while we cannot always afford to confront these forces especially by military
means, there are occasions when such confrontations cannot be avoided, and
should not be avoided, on ethical, humanitarian, as well as strategic grounds. The
case for such a confrontation cannot be clearer than it is in connection with
the Syrian conflict today. If Western powers fail to act to stop the bloodshed,
and the actions of Iran and Russia now, they will have to confront a bigger and
far more pervasive challenge tomorrow.

Unfortunately, this logic is
unlikely to be accepted now. Not when Obama and his coterie of
"realist" ideologues are leading the way. No. this lot will continue to
think of themselves as geniuses even as the world around them falls apart. They
will continue to congratulate themselves for “staying above the fray” and will fail
to see the impact of their stands and policies at home, where the fissures and
fractures separating communities, regions and classes continue to grow and
where old wounds, that have not fully healed, have been reopened, and new ones
have been inflicted. No. They won’t see that strife that is looming at home,
and will continue to believe in that myth that, somehow, America is immune, and
that the only security threat to be wary of is something that is clearly
“foreign” and “exotic.” But it is the familiar that we should fear.

*

The
Qalifate:The
Islamic State Was Coming Without the Invasion of Iraq. Kyle Orton is spot
on in noting that, even before the invasion of Iraq, Saddam has done much to
prepare the grounds for the emergence of IS. This does not excuse the major
fuckups that Americans committed there, but it does put things in context.
Local factors have played a more critical role in radicalization of both the Sunni
and Shia population communities.

Saddam had
taken extensive
stepsto Islamize the government and society since the mid-1980s, whichprofoundly
affectedthesecurity
sector. While this began cynically, the evidence is that Saddam had aconversion
experience. But even if Saddam remained a cynic, his government acted to promote a
religious movement under his leadership—call it Ba’athi-Salafism—and
reshaped society by, for example, empowering clerics as social leaders, notably
in Sunni Arab areas where they had not been before.

In fact, a similar phenomenon
could be observed in Syria ever since the mid-1980s, when Hafiz Al-Assad
crushed the Muslim Brotherhood only to empower the traditional Sunni
establishment. This establishment has been, since Ottoman times, quite
subservient to the state, its rulers and their provincial representatives. But
Assad Sr. was also quite willing to support more radical Salafi
interpretations, so long as the adherents involved carried out their Jihadi
activities elsewhere, and often in furtherance of Assad’s own regional schemes.
Beginning in the late 1980s, a revival of traditional Alawite piety was also
allowed, in tandem with Shia proselytization efforts. Earlier efforts at
Sunnifying the Alawites were abandoned. Bashar simply copied and advanced his
father’s tactics. The Assads remained cynical throughout the process.

The underlying ethos is simple to
explain: when revolutionary leaders end up behaving like Sultans and become
interested in passing the reign of power to their children, they immediately
discover the importance of traditional religious piety as an important vehicle
in facilitating the people’s acceptance of this unfortunate turnaround. As such,
the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq simply unearthed processes that were already in
motion. This does not excuse the invasion and the subsequent mistakes, but, it
does reveal the importance of the local actors themselves in what is
transpiring in their societies. Ultimately, we are responsible for our own
misery.

US-backed
Syrian rebel group on verge of collapse. Why, because of lack of support from
West. This is exactly why the U.S. needs to move quickly and forcefully. No
support, followed by haphazard reluctant support is what got us here. The U.S.
needs to stand by its allies in Syria as forcefully and committedly as the Russians
and Iranians are doing in regard to Assad, otherwise, the U.S. will find it
well-nigh impossible to forge strong alliances elsewhere.

Support
for Isis around the Muslim-majority world. In regard to Syria, it’s not
clear if the pollsters actually to understand if the support to ISIS translates
into supporting its ideology as a whole, or if it simply reflects the belief
that it is fighting Assad, at least in some areas, and that it constitutes a
more serious threat to it than other groups.

Refugenics:Edward
Norton Helps Raise Nearly $400,000 for Syrian Refugees. The funds will go
to support the Syrian scientist profiled in Humans of New York. Despite their
individual or small-scale nature, that is, in comparison to the challenge at
hand, these efforts tug on the heart and are important to keep our faith in
humanity alive. So, thank you Edward Norton, Mandy Patinkin, Angelina Jolie,
Benedict Cumberbatch, and all other celebrities who have stood by the Syrian
refugees, and helped raise awareness about their plight. Thanks as well to the
non-celebrities doing so much to make the Syrian refugees feel home without
expectations of reward and far from the lime-lights.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Go ahead, patronize me!

IGD: We finally hit a perfect 10. We now offically live in the Age of Total Delirirum

The IGD or the Index of Global Delirium reflects the state of delirium in the world at a particular moment in time using a 1 to 10 measure, with 10 denoting the highest level of delirium. Levels of delirium change on the basis of various current developments such as instability, wars, terrorist activities, elections, sports events, financial meltdowns, leaks of sensitive information, etc. Note:levels of violence and delirium do not always coincide. IGD levels may rise even when violence levels seem to take a downturn.

Dystopia Today: The Home Front

Dystopia Today: The Global Stage

I Am Syria

Educators will find theI Am Syria websiteto be quite useful when it comes to finding audio-visual materials explaining the Syrian Crisis in general and the plight of the Syrian Refugees in particular. The site is maintained by a small team of volunteer educators and receives tens of thousands of visits per months.I am honored to be involved in this effort.

Recent Entries into The Holy Deliricon

Recent Entries into The Holy Delirindex

Recent Observations by Delirian Mundi

Recent Scenes from Theatrum Deliria

Recent Episodes from The Cauldron

Syria: A Fire Within

As anti-Assad demonstrations erupt across Syria, Ammar Abdulhamid, an exiled pioneer of the pro-democracy movement must convince US leaders that they have allies on the ground. Or else those allies, and the entire pro-democracy movement, may forever perish.